SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.)ANITA, a young married woman, was found murdered in her in laws house on January 28, 1997. At the time of death she was pregnant and the age of male child was approximately 34 to 38 weeks. ANITA was married to Balwant Singh (appellant) on May 18, 1996 and most of the time after her marriage she had remained at her parental house. Only two days before her, death i. e. on January 26, 1997 Balwant Singh took her to his house. Balwant Singh was indicted for having committed murder of ANITA and vide judgment dated September 10, 1998, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror (Alwar) convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer. One Month Imprisonment. Impugning this judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
(2.)AS per the prosecution story a written report was submitted by informant Basanti Lal Yadav, at police Station Behror on January 29, 1997 at 1. 35 A. M. against his son Balwant Singh (appellant) with the averments that his son Balwant Singh was married to Anita (since deceased) on May 18, 1996. Balwant Singh brought Anita from her parental home on January 26, 1997. At about 10 AM on January 28, 1997 when the informant was leaving his house for office, he had noticed some exchange of hot words between Balwant Singh and Anita. Subsequently around 4 PM he received information that Anita was lying unconscious in the house. The informant rushed to his house and on reaching there he found Anita dead. The informant suspected that it was Balwant Singh who had killed Anita.
On the basis of the said information a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of Anita was conducted. Inquest report and memo of site plan were drawn. The appellant was arrested and at his instance belt allegedly used in commission of the offence got recovered. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror. Charge under Sec. 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as eleven witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. The appellant himself appeared as a defence witness and raised plea of alibi. In support of his plea, the appellant produced three more defence witnesses, who stated that while appellant was away and Anita was alone in the house two unknown persons visited her. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking is as under: (i) On the fateful day Anita was last seen with the appellant and the informant Basanti Lal Yadav, the father of appellant, while leaving his house for office at 10 AM, had noticed some exchange of hot words between the appellant and Anita and she was found dead in the afternoon. (ii) Balwant and Anita were alone in the first floor of the house and except the old grand-mother of the appellant, no other person was present in the house. (iii) Cause of death of Anita was asphyxia due to strangulation and belt used for being the neck of Anita was recovered at the instance of the appellant. (iv) Appellant raised false plea of alibi.

The learned Senior Advocate, Mr. S. R. Bajwa canvassed that in the event of there being only circumstantial evidence, those circumstances must be proved to be such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocent of the accused. The court should therefore be watchful and ensure that conjectures do not take place of legal proof. It has been the contention of learned counsel that the prosecution has utterly failed to link up the chain and as matter of fact the snap in the chain is not very far to seek. According to learned counsel there is no cogent evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged murder of his own wife Anita. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive for the alleged crime. So far as the evidence of last seen is concerned, there is nothing unusual about it. A wife is normally last seen in the company of her husband. The evidence created through alleged information and consequent recovery of belt is per se fake and fabricated. The injuries around the neck of the deceased do not appear to have been caused by using the belt.

In order to adjudge as to whether chain of the circumstances has been linked up or not, let us advert to the testimony of witnesses examined at the trial. The evidence of Dr. Virendra Kumar (PW. 6), who performed autopsy, shows that Anita sustained following antemortem injuries:- (i) Abrasion: 3 x 0. 5 cm on anterior aspect of right leg upper part. (ii) Bruise: 3 x 0. 5 cm on the right popliteal fossa. (iii) Right upper lid swollen and blue in colour. (iv) Three Abrasions on the neck of sizes:- (a) 6 x 2 cm on the anterior aspect of middle of neck. (b) 5 x 2 cm on the left side of neck extending from mid line. (c) 4 x 3 cm on the left side of neck lateral to abrasion No. (b ). All the three abrasions were dry, hard and perchanent like, brown in colour. On dissection extravasation of blood was found present into sub cutenedous tissue. Organs generation (external and internal): Healthy, pregnant uterus extending above umbilicus having dead male child, had downwards, average built scalp hair well developed, ear cartilage developed, bread niddle present 3-4 mm. in size, plantal and palmer creases present. Scrotum deeply pigmented and adequate sugar present. Gestational age of child approximately 34 to 38 weeks. Cause of death was ASPHYXIA due to STRANGULATION. Dr. Virendra Kumar was cross examined at length. A suggestion was also given to him that it could have been a case of suicide but this suggestion did not find his approval.

(3.)BASANTI Lal Yadav (PW. 1) in his deposition stated that Anita was married to his son Balwant on May 18, 1996. She had been to her parental house for the last 2-3 months before Balwant took her on January 26, 1997 to his house. On January 28, 1997 while he was about to leave his house, he found Balwant and Anita laughing and joking. He then gave a word of caution to them. There was no body in the house except his old mother. At about 3- 4 PM he received information in Tehsil that Anita was lying unconscious. On reaching the house he found Anita dead. The prosecution after declaring BASANTI Lal Yadav hostile, cross examined him. In his cross examination he however admitted that written report Ex. P-1 was lodged by him.
Ishwar Singh (PW. 2), uncle of deceased Anita, deposed that on January 28, 1997 one Ramavtar informed him that Anita was ill and admitted to Kotputli Hospital. When he reached at village Hamidpur, he found people telling that Balwant had killed anita. On being asked as to what had happened, the father of Balwant told him that Balwant had murdered Anita. At the time of death Anita had pregnancy of 7-8 months. In the cross examination counsel for the appellant gave following suggestion to the witness:- " In fact Anita herself had committed suicide because she became pregnant much before entering into marriage with Balwant Singh" The witness answered this suggestion in negative. Rohtash (PW. 3), father of the deceased, corroborated the testimony of Ishwar Singh (PW. 2 ). Ratan Lal (PW. 4) Motbir of seizure memos, stated that pieces of bangles and belt were lying at the place of occurrence itself between the two costs. Raghu Raj Singh, Investigation Officer (PW. 10) deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of Balwant Singh (Ex. P-14) recovery of leather belt used in commission of offence, was effected by him vide Ex. P-9. Iron-buckle and leather ring of the belt and pieces of bangles were however seized by him from the place of occurrence.

Appellant Balwant Singh who appeared as a witness as DW. 4 in his deposition stated that on January 26, 1996 when he took Anita from her parental house, she had a child in her wonb. On January 28, 1996 he and Anita visited to Narnaul for her check-up by lady Doctor whose name was also Anita. They left the house at 7. 00 AM and came back around 11 AM. Finding the meals ready in the house, they decided to eat it. They had shared the meals in one plate while laughing and joking together. Sardar Singh and Sultan cautioned them not to behave casually in the village. After eating the food he left his house on scooter and went to the shop of Jhasla Electronics belonging to one Ramavtar Yadav and remained there upto 5. 30 PM. When he left the house his wife was happy. After reaching the house at 5. 30 PM, he found people assembled there. Sardara then told him that two boys aged 20 years came after he left the house. In the cross examination he stated that Narnaul was 20 kms. away from his village and Dr. Anita had checked up his wife by a machine. He further stated that some months back when his wife left for her parental house he could not notice her pregnancy.